Kevin

The post was not written to try to produce a reductio argument, but to remind you of the problems facing a teacher of biology in constructing a curriculum. You say (later) that a lack of time is only a problem if one assumes a set curriculum, but unfortunately that is often what many states (in the US. I'm speaking from my own experience, but it may be the same elsewhere) have. US states often have a core set of topics which the student must be tested on in order to pass. This greatly reduces the chance to discuss philosophy of science or alternatives to orthodox biology, because the teachers will, of course, stress what their students are required to know under the current structure. I appreciate what it is you're trying to say, and ideally I would like to see sufficient time given to the issues surrounding the nature of scientific discovery and knowledge.

However, even if one had an ideal teacher with an ideal timeframe and lesson plan, it's not clear that creationism would be the best topic to introduce the nature of science. A better solution, in my opinion, would be to take an issue of current controversy within the framework of science itself, such as the out-of-Africa vs. multiregional models of human evolution. This would stress science as a process where theories may be disputed from within its own framework, and not from outside in the popular books of which creationist writings almost solely consist. Instead of a portrayal of an insular community of scientists, where the criticism of it comes from outside, using current controveries would portray science--more correctly--as a field where dissenting opinion is allowable and, on occasion, brilliantly vindicated.

Kimpatsu

Been looking in the mirror, have you?
Then I'll ask again: Why believe something for which there is absolutely no evidenec?
This attack isn't even glib. Tell me why Occam's Razor does not apply in this instance?
No, the evidence, the evidence! Get your jargon right!
Hardly. We offer evidence for our claims; you don't. Big difference.
This is wonderfully emotional, but it's not our rationalism that has caused the world to go to hell.
How can I let this amazing claim go unchallenged? Evidence, please. Post it here. Do not post again until you offer this evidence.
But you do believe in life after death? Evidence for such, please.
No, he's reaching the logical conclusion of a universe in which there is no conscious guiding hand. The universe IS blindly, pitilessly indifferent. Your wishing it otherwise won't make it so.
Wrong, because his position is supported by the evidence. The universe is 15 billion years old, and there has never been a single verifiable demonstration of intent. One such demonstration would force Dawkins--and me--to change our positions, which is currently the logical default position. That it is not embraced by the theists is telling. Why do they beleive something in the total absence of evidence?
There's a difference between thinking that you're right and being right (a difference that seems to have escaped you). Bin Laden may think he's right, but he's not. Allah is as much a fantasy as Yahweh or the Easter Bunny. Dawkins has never suggested that we rationalists kill anyone (for that would be irrational).
Why can't you tell the difference?

Doubting Didymus

Dear emotional:

You appear to be under the impression that whenever dawkins speaks, his every opinion is intended to summarise the scientific consensus. It may come as a shock, but when dawkins makes the statements he does about religion, he ISN'T talking about science, he's simply giving his opinion about it. Do you expect every scientific mind to keep their mouths shut on everything they can't run through the method?

It's just an opinion. He isn't making scientific pronouncements. This means you have no grounds for your desire that dawkins shut up other than that you disagree with him. That's perfectly understandable, I suppose, but you should probably stop acting as if there were any real reason behind your desire to see dawkins clam up other than your own personal distaste.

You wish Dawkins would write more like Miller. Well, I wish J.K. Rowling would write more like someone with talent. I wish Stehpen J Gould had written more like someone who engages the services of editors. I wish the bible had been written more like the Illiad. Too bloody bad for both of us.

P.S. Your claim that Dawkins drives people to creationism could really use some kind of evidence, if you don't mind. Or is that too materialist for you?

Kimpatsu

Hey, DD, don't diss Joanne Rowling! She's cool!

Nic Tamzek

Thanks Hugh for giving a fuller outline of your views. I don't think we'll be able to design the perfect curriculum here in this thread -- that is a complex matter usually done by large committees -- but I agree that, say, including a historical perspective is worthwhile. There is at least a bit of this in most textbooks, e.g. a few paragraphs on pre-Darwin biology and geology. Teaching a whole evolution unit from this perspective? Maybe, although I tend to think that such things are more appropriate for college.

FWIW there are already many instances where it is fairly standard to bring up incorrect views with the purpose of correcting them. E.g., it is a well-known pedagogical fact that students tend to think, as a default position, in a "Lamarkian" fashion, and thus it is important for teachers to clearly distinguish Lamarkian vs. Darwinian evolution and explain why the latter is correct.

I do think it would be worthwhile if students got, somewhere in high school, things like reasons *why* scientists think the earth is old, and why it is 4.5 billion and not something else. As far as I can tell this is not taught much at all, if anything the number is taught as a number to memorize. I only learned about isochrons etc. via talk.origins. As this would pretty much demolish YEC right there I'm not sure much further discussion would be warranted.

Issues dealing with things like the origins of biological adaptive complexity, and ID debates about such, almost certainly belong at a college level. If a teacher can communicate how NS works, the evidence for common descent, etc., you're doing pretty good in high school.

Nic Tamzek

I posted the Ruse essay in a new thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=52510

...so as not to distract from the discussions within this thread.

Kimpatsu

Thank you, Nic.

Celsus

Hi Hugo,

Just a partial response to the comments that are somewhat answers to my post:
I agree with you--I would also like to see methodology taught earlier, and in more detail. But to extend science curriculae to include methodology does not necessitate letting the creationists infiltrate the class. I would distinguish between introducing the philosophical debates surrounding methodology (which is not a good idea), and teaching methodology as it is currently applied in the physical sciences (which is a good idea). After all, we do know that we have to unlearn everything we learned in school when we get to uni.

Joel

Godot

You forgot to take it to the limit. Even in the first few years of uni, you are forced to discard what was taught to you earlier on (including the first couple years at uni).

Hugo Holbling

I agree with you in principle and can think of some other issues i would like to see involved, but my point was that the creationist push for inclusion is a political problem that is the pressing concern at the moment. A change of approach towards teaching tools may be a good idea in itself; i am proposing it take into account creationism in order to try to deal with it in some way that prevents it being taught as science proper. Nevertheless, i appreciate your comments and they have given me plenty to think about.

I suppose i'm suggesting that such an approach should be moved forward, in order to provide students with the methodological and critical tools that would probably prevent creationism taking hold in the first place. As i said, i'm skeptical of the claim that they wouldn't be able to cope with the ideas, and in a general way i think these tools are more important that the facts, which can be found independently with the former. Perhaps i'm suspicious of teaching facts alone because this may give students the impression that learning is about finding the expert opinion on a subject, rather then the employment of critical tools. When creationist "scientists" publish their books and pamphlets, the "expert" status that their pseudo-degrees grant them may convince people for just this reason. I hope you see my difficulty.

As i said to Kevin, there is still the pressing political problem of the creationists; my proposals are meant to address this, not to imply that creationism is implicit in any meaningful study of methodology.

Agreed. I'd like to see less reliance on expert opinion and more on learning a methodology that would enable one to judge conflicting ideas for oneself.